Wattenmaker v. Wattenmaker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wattenmaker v. Wattenmaker

358 So. 2d 227, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15863

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1978

DocketNo. 77-572

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 358 So. 2d 227 (Wattenmaker v. Wattenmaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wattenmaker v. Wattenmaker, 358 So. 2d 227, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15863 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stella Wattenmaker, the respondent in the trial court, appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Morris Watten-maker. The marriage lasted slightly less than four years. The parties were of mature age. Stella has no financial claim except the claim to alimony growing out of the marriage relationship.

The points presented urge error upon (1) the denial of her motion for continuance of the last of several trial sessions, and (2) the denial of her claim for alimony. The denial of the continuance has not been shown to be an abuse of the particular discretion of a trial judge in such matters. See In Re Gregory, 313 So.2d 735 (Fla.1975). The trial judge’s ruling that the circumstances of the parties do not call for the assessment of alimony to the wife must be affirmed under the rule set forth in Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); and Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Stella Wattenmaker, the respondent in the trial court, appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Morris Watten-maker. The marriage lasted slightly less than four years. The parties were of mature age. Stella has no financial claim except the claim to alimony growing out of the marriage relationship.

The points presented urge error upon (1) the denial of her motion for continuance of the last of several trial sessions, and (2) the denial of her claim for alimony. The denial of the continuance has not been shown to be an abuse of the particular discretion of a trial judge in such matters. See In Re Gregory, 313 So.2d 735 (Fla.1975). The trial judge’s ruling that the circumstances of the parties do not call for the assessment of alimony to the wife must be affirmed under the rule set forth in Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); and Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 So. 2d 227, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wattenmaker-v-wattenmaker-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack